In 2007 a Tennessee law was passed, as many bad laws are, in the aftermath of a horrific crime. Johnia Berry was violently murdered. Her parents asked State Senator Ron Ramsey to consider working with a national DNA database to assist in the investigation. Senator Ramsey introduced a bill mandating collection of DNA from those arrested for violent felonies in Tennessee. It passed and is now law in Tennessee and 23 other states.

In one of those “It’s a small world” moments, years later a misdemeanor suspect voluntarily offered up a DNA sample. It was matched to DNA from the Berry crime scene. The suspect was arrested for the crime but committed suicide before trial. He was not identified through any provision of the law, but the connection is close enough that people make the mistake of seeing it as an example of how the law benefits Tennesseans.

This year Lt Governor Ramsey, wants to expand the scope of the bill. SB 257 mandates collection of DNA from all persons arrested for any felony in Tennessee. Connected as it is to the murder of Johnia Berry, some proponents ask “Do you favor the law or do you favor letting Johnia Berry’s murderer remain free?” Others say it’s no different from photos and fingerprints. Detractors frame it via the 4^th and 5^th Amendments and question requiring a citizen to surrender a part of “their person” for a criminal case which might “[compel him] … to be a witness against himself …” not to mention being deprived of his “property” without “due process.”

The bill additionally requires that, in the event charges are dropped or the accused is not convicted, the DNA sample taken at his arrest would be destroyed. This would seem to be an acknowledgment of the bill’s Constitutional problems. If the true bottom line for the sample’s retention is conviction, why not simply delay collection until then? Opponents I have talked to would support the bill if that one change were to be made. I am a member of that group.

A significant number of the bill’s opponents also distrust that the samples are “safe” in the custody of the government. Once collected, it is unclear exactly what happens to them. Given they are due to be destroyed under certain circumstances, it is clear there is some reservation as to the government having them in the first place. As many as 15% of the samples taken may be subject to this later destruction. But will they be merely stored until the case against the donor is disposed of? Will the sample be processed and compared against the national database to see if the DNA matches another sample in the system? Who is responsible for collection, processing, storage, payment and final disposition of the sample? These questions remain unanswered. Lt Governor Ramsey is confident penalties for failure to destroy or for misuse of samples are sufficient safeguard. Others remain suspicious of government’s track record as a watchdog for individual rights.

Such suspicion is downplayed by supporters of the bill. Then one reads the Feds are poised to take a technological breakthrough in genetic testing and expand their ravaging of individual rights by handing it over to, of all things, TSA for implementation. The controversies surrounding TSA and its use of technology and practice to abuse and violate citizens guilty only of wanting to catch a plane is well documented.

There are many questions to be asked here, too. Chiefly, under what circumstances would a DNA sample be legally required at an airport checkpoint? It is my opinion that handing over a portable, high speed genetic testing device to TSA will lead to an exponential increase in the lawless and reckless disregard of individual liberties by this particular government agency. Further, just as with the backscatter scanners, implementing it in such a public and high profile arena will not serve to make us more secure. It will merely soften the average citizen’s resolve to resist the unlawful infiltration of the state into the lives of citizens.

Technical innovation is welcomed by the law abiding. But we don’t sanction violating one law while enforcing another. The pursuit of justice must not itself create injustices and securing the rights of the people must remain the highest priority of government. A good start would be to alter Tennessee’s SB 257 to collect samples after conviction and to completely halt the introduction of portable DNA scanners until after the ethics and problems inherent in such technology have been fully explored.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

I know, I know … such horrible accusations and I’m a bad person for thinking such evil of my political opponents. No doubt I am a frothing at the mouth, racist, Obama hating, wingnut who ought to be ignored at best and vilified at worst. Except it’s true (video and pics after the jump).

While thousands of protesters showed up in Madison, WI, the state capitol, to protest Governor Scott Walker’s proposal that Public Sector Unions contribute their fair share to fix the state’s budget woes, they did so by skipping work. Schools were shut down and students either sent home or told to stay home for days because teachers simply went to Madison instead of showing up for work. There are no vacation requests, no requests for personal days, nothing … the schools were open and ready for educating but the teachers weren’t there.

Now, they are running headlong into a staple of Conservative ideology – being responsible for one’s actions. With all these days gone and no excuses, along with Democratic Senators having fled the state rather than do their jobs, people are beginning to wonder what will happen to them for being absent from work without permission and for no good reason. In the real world, if you don’t show and don’t call into work with a valid excuse (here’s a hint – protests are not a valid excuse) it’s called job abandonment and is cause for firing.

But the Teachers and their Union and supporters have found a novel way around the consequences of their irresponsibility. Individuals claiming to be doctors have been showing up in the crowds and offering Dr’s notes and excused absence slips for anyone who wants one. Despite requiring a medical exam to get one (I know, I just had one myself a couple of weeks back), the doctors appeared to have a steady stream of business. All one needed to do was tell the person writing the excuses what days you needed to be off. You could even specify future days. They write the excuse and move on to the next teacher.

What else should I call this but lying? I know, I know … Democrats don’t lie. It’s evil Republicans and Tea Party people who say they oppose the President’s policies when they really hate him because he’s black. They say they oppose fiscally irresponsible spending but what they really want is to give away their money to people who they choose, the wealthiest Americans, as opposed to expanding Entitlement programs. They claim to be grassroots and personally vested in the notions of Limited Government, Lower Taxes and Individual Responsibility but they are really only in this because the evil Koch brothers and FreedomWorks are paying them to protest. Like I said, Republicans and Tea Party people are the real liars – didn’t Al Franken prove that by saying so?

So what is the explanation from Progressives and Statists and Unions and Teachers for their behavior? I’m curious. If this is not lying, what is it? If it is not lying for personal gain, what is it? If this is not abdicating one’s responsibility for one’s actions by being far less than truthful, what is it? I’m waiting for the explanation … please …

Of course, what the Teachers and Unions are missing in all of this is the medium to long term view – the bigger picture. They are scrambling to cover their backsides in the short term. But the barn door is open, the cows are out and the world knows the truth about what they are willing to do to escape personal responsibility and attempt to feather their nests at the same time. If they will lie now – over this – and do so in such a transparently selfish manner, why expect anyone to ever believe a thing they say tomorrow?

Of course, this only addresses the lies by Teachers and Union members. It does not address the defrauding of Wisconsin taxpayers who might be on the hook paying for hundreds of thousands of dollars of “sick pay” for days missed with the reason lied about. I wonder what the penalties for fraud are in Wisconsin? Can you keep your medical license for doing such things?

Didn’t the President come out in support of these people? I believe he did.

Democrats ought to be very careful here. Because there really are consequences to one’s actions. Believe it.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse.

In the aftermath of the Tuscon carnage; before I learned the name of any victim beyond Representative Giffords and along with hearing the name of the shooter, I also learned I was to blame.

Beyond the ignorant premise that any Tea Partier anywhere had anything to do in any way with such senseless violence lies the sad reality that the obvious has yet again escaped the political Left. While a woman struggles for her life and her husband and children suffer in unimaginable limbo, 5 other families would trade anything for even long shot odds at getting their loved one back. In response, as a friend of mine tweeted, “My Conservative friends offer prayers, my Liberal friends offer blame.”

Instead of coming together in a no-brainer, non-partisan way, the Left has engaged their spin machine sensing yet another crisis that must not be wasted. Progressive Media pundits, bloggers, organizations and commentators seized on what they described as violent language and imagery used by the Right, ignored the use of identical language and imagery from their own side of the political divide and use that premise to accuse my friends and me of driving a man over the edge of societal and spiritual restraint. We wound up and turned loose a murderer.

Deranged and evil people exist. They always have and always will. People used to understand evil and insanity sprang, not from political ideology, but from individual psyches. Unfortunately, the political Left does not. An unspeakable tragedy occurs and, without a shred of evidence, my friends and I are to blame. Not because there’s proof but because Progressives learned The Big Lie technique decades ago and their purpose is not to engage but to destroy.

Still, just because I don’t like the sound of it, doesn’t make it wrong. So let’s look into the existence of violence as a tool in today’s political environment. Where is it found?

As evidence emerges revealing Jared Loughner as a creature of the Left the pattern of recent political violence remains consistent; Progressives are the violent ones in both word and deed. See the Discovery Channel’s James Lee; SEIU thugs doing a beat down on Ken Gladney and Nathan Tabor being assaulted.. Should we really have to bring up the WTO and G8 riots? What about the attack on Prince Charles last month? What about ELF, the ’68 Democratic Convention, Black Panthers, the Weathermen, SDS, Bill Ayers, and on and on and on. But it’s the Tea Partiers who must be watched. Can those accusing me and my friends point to even a single instance of verifiable Tea Party violence?

Even USA Today is telling The Big Lie that it’s only Tea Parties and Conservatives who are to blame. “Gabrielle Giffords shooting fuels debate over rhetoric” references violent imagery and rhetoric but only cites examples from the Right. Were they unaware of Progressive uses of terms like “targeted” and images like crosshairs? Did they miss the BoyBlue post at DailyKos? Is it even remotely possible they are unaware the President himself used violent imagery and rhetoric when he said of Republicans, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”and that a GOP victory would mean “hand to hand combat?” Did they miss VP Biden threaten to strangle Republicans?

I don’t see a call for violence in any of this language. These are metaphors; figures of speech. Tea Partiers understand our political system, like our judicial system, is adversarial in nature. While we will never “all just get along”, we can behave civilly and respectfully when agreeing to disagree. Unless you are a Progressive.

Then it’s all there in “Rules for Radicals”. The point is never to engage in debate; never to search out the truth; never to work together to accomplish goals for the good of us all. It is only ever to win; to destroy your opponent, to ridicule, demonize, polarize and marginalize those with whom you disagree for the purpose of winning – even if you’re wrong. Especially if you’re wrong. Thoroughly violent images and rhetoric if there ever was.

So, sure, let’s tone down the rhetoric. But we’ll need to do so in the real world. There, only those actually engaged in inflammatory rhetoric can stop doing so. The ball is in your court, Progressives. Once you’ve committed to toning it down, to really seal the deal, you should probably apologize to my friends and me …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Public debate is critical to the American political experience. Organizations and politicians take their message to voters, highlight strengths and weaknesses of the issues and submit their solutions. On election day, we see who the People choose.

Integral to the process, yet seldom mentioned, is for each party to be honest and operate in good faith. They must make arguments and quote statistics they believe to be true. They must not misrepresent their opponents or deceive participants. They may later be found wrong, but they may not intentionally deceive. This post is necessarily one of the longest I’ve written. I thought it better to address each point well than to gloss over one or more dismissively.

Joshua Holland, Progressive author and editor and Senior Writer at Alternet, recently wrote “The 9 Biggest Conservative Lies about Taxes and Public Spending”. It should serve as a model of how not to conduct the public debate necessary to arrive at good decisions for our nation. Holland doesn’t seem interested in debate. At times, he is less than truthful himself while outing Conservatives as liars. And he is mostly wrong. Let’s look at Holland’s points.

Conservative lie #1 – “Cutting Taxes Leads to More Money for the Government“

Holland’s rationale is faulty as he combines unrelated facts to form the foundation of his argument. He sources a piece by Progressive author Perrspective, “Meet the New GOP Alchemists”, to undergird his position.But it merely reveals his error.

“…Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit.” The argument is that if deficits exist after a tax cut, then cuts don’t increase revenues. But this requires one to adopt the view that if government receives a billion dollars this year and yet runs a deficit, the problem was with revenues. Nowhere is spending factored in to the equation. In truth, revenues are not the key component in deficits, spending is. For example, if governments only spend the money they actually receive, there are no deficits! Yet, it is quite possible to have incredibly large revenues and still run deficits if spending is increased as well.

Perrspective dismisses John Boehner’s words  from June, 2010, “It’s not the marginal tax rates … [that] … led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago.” Perrspective insists the 2010 deficits result from Bush Tax Cuts, ignoring the TARPs, the housing crisis and Obama’s deficit spending.

Holland wants more than just “tax cuts don’t increase revenues”. He wants a cause and effect between tax cuts from a decade ago and deficits. That’s a logical fallacy known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. If he gets it, then tax cuts cause deficits, not surpluses.  If Holland demonstrated the only cause for deficits is falling revenues, he has a case. Holland demonizes Tax Cuts, not Spending Increases, because it promotes his agenda, not because it’s true. Yet there isn’t even complete agreement among Progressives as to the relationship between the two. The WaPo piece Holland quotes to support lie #9 also observes of the Bush tax cuts, “Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today.”

To be fair, “lie” #1 wasn’t tax cuts cause deficits. It was tax cuts don’t increase revenues. But the cuts Holland focuses on are only the Bush Tax Cuts specifically. He then extends his findings to all tax cuts generally. This seems effective as Bush’s Tax Cuts admittedly are not the strongest argument that cuts lead to revenues. It fails since there are other clearer instances of cuts raising revenues.

But Holland’s accusation is absolute. It’s not that Conservatives are sometimes wrong or right only now and then depending on circumstances to avow that tax cuts boost revenues; it’s that Conservatives are lying to say so. If that’s true, then no tax cut can ever have increased revenues. To debunk Holland takes only a single exception and Holland himself provides it. In “lie” #2, his last paragraph notes, “…go back to the Kennedy era, when cutting the top rate did spur growth and bring more money into the government’s coffers.” Holland can’t have it both ways.

Conservative lie #2 – “Art Laffer’s Famous Curve Supports lie #1”

Art Laffer argues there is a tax rate so high as to cause taxpayers to avoid paying it and revenues will fall. Exactly where that is on the rate scale is not clear. Holland quotes economists suggesting it may be in the 50% to 70% range. Holland disproves his own contention and admits Laffer’s observation is not a lie right after saying it is.

That Laffer’s Curve doesn’t kick in until taxes are high doesn’t make the notion high taxes reduce revenues a lie. It is merely one of many argument illustrating people will do what they can to reduce their taxes.

That Americans in all tax brackets try to pay as little tax as possible is seen each April 15th. It also drives the government’s own tax credit carrots. Laffer need not explain all tax avoidance behavior to be relevant. Conservatives are right. People fight to keep more of their money for all sorts of reasons, including because rates are high. It’s their money, after all.

Conservative lie #3 – Taxes on the Rich Keep ‘Wealth Producers’ from ‘Creating Jobs’

Once again, Holland tries to blend two very different arguments into one. The lie was supposed to be about taxing the Rich. His argument is about taxing businesses. The wealthy and the businesses they typically own or control are two different taxpayers. We’ll tackle businesses here and the Rich in #4.

Businesses with current costs under control, including hiring and CEO salaries, can still be unsure what impact tax increases will have on their business resulting in them adopting a “wait and see” posture.

Tell a business it will have a cost increase and it will have an immediate impact. It will ask, “How do I deal with the added expense?” Just as with government when its costs go up, increasing costs to a  business is dealt with in one of two ways or a combination of the two. It can cut costs or raise prices.

Holland simplistically assumes a business booming now automatically hires workers simply because it is booming. While it can be true, it is a false premise since businesses boom for many reasons. Not all of them result in additional hiring.

For example, if Company A keeps costs in line and can undersell Company B with poor cost controls, Company A may hire new workers. Both companies face the same tax challenge and A is better at controlling costs so A’s boom remains and they add staff.

But if A’s increased costs reduce profits enough, it may not justify a new hire. The potential benefits don’t outweigh the risks. They may opt to simply stay where they are. They’ll still do better than B and the boom will continue without adding staff.

Of course, A could raise prices to offset the new costs. But in the real world, that can lead to an object lesson on the Laffer Curve’s validity. When prices rise, sometimes people don’t buy or don’t buy as much. Bye-bye boom. A booming business which bets wrong can bust and  lose all its jobs, new and old.

Faced with cost increases, businesses often sit on cash to see how things shake out. This is particularly true of increased taxes. Business must understand the reality of what is happening, not merely accede to government’s assurances of what will happen. Taxes are political decisions which add counterfeit pressures to the market. Expanding the workforce is a Market decision and it has to be correct. Blending the two factors is not easy and “Better safe than sorry!” is often the choice. Increasing taxes negatively impacts hiring.

Conservative lie #4 – Tax Cuts for Upper Earners Spur Job Growth

This is related to but very different from “lie” #3. #3 applied to businesses. #4 applies to individuals.

I dealt with this notion a week ago. The short version is wealthy people definitely create jobs with their wealth. Consider that in just 1999, 4 men; Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and Henry Ford were responsible for 21 million jobs in this country, 16.5% of all the jobs there were.

It is the wealthy, and arguably mostly the wealthy, who create vast numbers of jobs. Behind them are the “wealthy wannabes” who understand wealth is created by serving their fellows well; small business owners who aspire to join the elite ranks one day.

Whether by saving and investing, personal spending or business expansion, the wealthy use their money to create jobs. The best thing we can do for Job Creation is let them keep more of it. The second best thing we can do is let the non-wealthy keep more of their money, too.

Conservative lie #5 – Only Half of American Families Pay Taxes

It is difficult to even dignify this point with a response because it is so patently either a lie itself or evidence of such ignorance that Mr Holland should be ashamed to put his name on it. This one point alone is grounds to cast suspicion on the validity of everything that Mr. Holland might ever say again.

Holland accuses Conservatives of saying only 50% of Americans pay taxes. He says it’s a lie since everyone pays state and local taxes and sales tax.

What we really say is the bottom 50% of wage earners in America don’t pay any federal income tax (actually the bottom third pay nothing, the bottom half pay about 3%), a demonstrably true statement. Moving on …

Conservative lie #6 – Americans Are Taxed to Death

Holland sources a graph of the tax burden of 30 of the most developed nations for 2008. America’s rate of 26.9% of GDP ranks us 26th lowest. So, what’s the big deal with a measly ol’ 26.9%? He wants us to be happy with our low comparative tax rate. But this is America and we do things differently here! At least we used to.

The UK, France and Canada have higher rates. Their rates are high because they give their citizens so much. It is precisely the Socialism v Capitalism debate currently raging in US politics. Holland is fine with a turn to Socialism and taxing others to accomplish that. Conservatives are not.

Greece, Portugal and Spain have higher rates, too. In 2010, these countries are riddled with debt and insolvent despite high taxes. These nations defaulting on their obligations could bring down the EU and perhaps reach out to damage or destroy America. Which is precisely the point.

High taxes should never be a fix for irresponsible spending on social programs or deficit based stimulus. Suggesting we emulate these nations is insane. The US at the bottom of the list means we might yet escape their fate. Their higher taxes are not keeping their countries happy and healthy and may, in fact, contribute to their deaths since Conservatives and Laffer are right, higher taxes lead to reduced revenues. These nations are literally being taxed to death. Holland wants us to be more like them.

Conservatives do say we are being taxed to death. But it isn’t a lie. If Progressives win the debate, we will either cease to exist due to irresponsible spending policy or because what we become is no longer America. Either way, America is dead. And high taxes will be near the top of the factor list.

Conservative lie #7 – We’re Being Killed by Runaway Government Spending

This is little more than a reprise of #6. Holland sources a Progressive group’s report on America’s ranking among the same countries in #6 above, but for spending and for 2004-2007. His argument is that we spend less than most countries on the list on “public spending” and they are just fine.

Illustrative of what they mean by “public spending is the statement, “Of equal importance is how much a government spends, and particularly how effectively it puts the revenues it collects through taxes back into the economy.” Unasked is the question, why is government collecting a penny more than it needs to operate itself and not leaving the rest to its rightful owners to put into the economy?

Why do Conservatives complain so much about government spending? See my answer for #6.

Conservative lie #8 – Conservatives Favor Low Taxes and Limited Government

Holland’s use of “the Right,” “Republicans,” and “Conservatives” interchangeably suggests he doesn’t see or understand the difference between them. Does he also believe the Left, Democrats and Progressives are identical?

Conservatives don’t contend the whole of the GOP favors low taxes and limited government. We are just as mad at Bush and, more recently, those voting us a 35% estate tax and another year of unemployment as we are with Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

The best Holland could say is Conservatives know they are more likely to get an acceptable deal from the GOP than from Democrats. Not that the GOP will always deliver; just that the Donkeys are unlikely ever to deliver. Bush did a lot of good to go along with his lot of bad while Obama and Progressives just did a lot of very bad.

Holland’s own arguments bears this out. He says Reagan and Bush are tax cutters and notes  government spending and size grew under both administrations. He ignores that both men dealt with strong Democrats and weak Republicans in Congress which spent the surpluses generated by their tax cuts. Were there Conservatives in those congresses? Of course. Were there moderate Republicans in those congresses? Yes. We saw it last week in the Lame Duck debacle. In a minority role in the GOP caucus, Conservatives are hard pressed to halt the Progressive destruction visited on America by Democrats and some Republicans. But that doesn’t mean we agree with it.

Portraying Conservatives as the moral equivalent of Republicans is, yet again, deceptive and untrue. Holland knows this. Or he should.

Conservative lie #9 – Taxes on Top Earners Are Actually Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’

Of the 9 statements, I’m inclined to grant Holland is correct in his notion that taxing the wealthy is unlikely to tax small business. I’m less inclined to call Conservatives liars if they say it. Perhaps they’re caught up in the mantra of the moment as the Left was with “gravitas” and “negotiating with hostage takers.”

In addition, there are some problems inherent in this particular debate. From his sources I conclude Holland defines “top earners” as those making over $170,000 per year. That includes a lot of small business owners. Less clear is exactly what is meant by both “small business” and “small business income.”

Holland dismisses multiple income streams as relevant if the earner makes a lot of money from one of them; a media personality with a million dollar network salary and $25,000 in income from speaking engagements. Why is a stand alone small business made irrelevant simply because it’s owner is also wealthy? That $25K is real small business income. The impact of taxes on the people who work for and service it are quite real. That doesn’t change because the owner is wealthy apart from its profits.

Holland’s sources are also dismissive of small profits noting derisively that GOP claims of tax increases hurting small business include as small businesses entities showing even $1 in profit . How preposterous. Conventional wisdom shows most small businesses fail. Virtually all those failures stem from no profit or not enough profit? Many businesses operate at a loss for a year or more before making a profit to be taxed at any rate? Businesses exist to generate profits. And they may expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to generate that measly $1 profit and get their heads finally above water. Only Progressives despise profits for not being large rather than celebrate them for being at all.

The bottom line appears to be that Mr. Holland is making things up as he goes along in order to further the narrative that he desires as opposed to the one based in reality. He is preaching to a Progressive choir and uninformed and lazy Moderate and Indie voters who will recognize the kernel of truth in his statements “Conservatives say …” and miss or ignore the error which follows.

The pity is that articles such as Holland’s take time to research and write. Had he put together a fair representation of Conservative thought, we could have entered into a debate on the ideology and resulting policy from each side of the spectrum. Win, lose or draw, both sides would have been better for it and citizens would have had a valuable resource. Instead, for reasons known only to himself, he chose to present Conservatives in a light that can only be seen as intentionally bad; misrepresenting both their views and their values. Doing so does his own cause no favors and irreparably damages his own credibility. It’s what can happen when men are held responsible for the consequences of their actions. But that’s another post …

I have a deep respect for those wearing their country’s uniform. I have a deep, personal revulsion for those thoughtlessly critical of those in uniform; people like John Murtha, John Kerry, Richard Belzer and others.

One group, above all, holds a special place of revulsion: the members of Westboro Baptist Church. I don’t know how many there are. I can’t believe there would be a lot. I only ever see the same ones on TV. For a small group, they’ve become a huge pariah to people in and out of the church. Their message is severely flawed.

God does not hate homosexuals. God does not hate anyone. John 3:16 teaches God loves the world, including gays and lesbians. Christians are commanded to love one another in 1 John 4 because “God is love” and are taught that those who do not love do not know God. Beyond thoughtless, beyond heartless, beyond merciless – the best description of the Westboro Baptists is loveless. God loves them yet they love nothing and no one outside their own circle. They certainly don’t love God as they deny and defy His Word by the content of their message.

God is not judging America. God is not killing soldiers. Yes, God is Just. But He does not hate people. He hates their sin. All sin must be atoned for or justice means nothing. The only payment for sin is the ultimate one: death. This is more than physical death. It encompasses the body, soul and spirit of man. It is existence without God. How can one reconcile Love and Justice? Again, John 3:16 explains it. Because of Justice, someone must “perish” as the verse puts it. Someone must die. Yet due to God’s Love, He steps in and offers to pay the price Himself instead of you and me having to pay it. That’s what happened at the Cross. God died in my place. He died so I didn’t have to. He experienced Judgment so I might escape it. Since then, God’s judgment has been suspended, His wrath having been poured out on Jesus on the Cross. This is the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” A final Judgment is coming where those who accepted Christ’s gift will enter heaven. Those rejecting that gift must pay the price themselves. They will die; utterly, completely and eternally separated from Life.

That is what Christians believe. You need not personally believe it to recognize Christians have taught this for millennia. It is the heritage Westboro Baptist Church has abandoned for a false gospel. So deceived are they, they will endure all contempt and animosity and claim they are being persecuted for their faith. They are not. They are reviled because their behavior and their belief is contemptible and a perversion of the truth they falsely claim to abide by.

Their behavior is one other thing: legal. Their proclamation of delight over the deaths of US soldiers killed in action at their funerals is protected by the 1st Amendment. So are their signs and prayers for more IEDs to kill even more. All anyone knows about what they believe is that soldiers are fools and that God is killing them personally because He is mad at America over homosexuality. There is no solution. There is no horror over the suffering. It is easy to picture them dancing like pagans covered in the blood of the soldiers they hate and rejoicing. Yet as revolting as their message is, its content is protected.

And, like a Communist Fifth Column, Rand’s Moochers and Looters, the serpent in the Garden; they use that protection to shield themselves from us. They use our values against us while destroying them. Their announcements of their intent to cruelly abuse the families of fallen soldiers at the height of their grief include the notation that the soldier died so they would have the right to speak as they do.

Fortunately, those rights exist for all Americans. If they may protest a soldier’s funeral, others may protest them. These people are coming to Humboldt, TN this Saturday (tomorrow) to protest at the funeral of a fallen American soldier, PFC David Finch. You can see their notice of intent here. Other Americans will meet them and protest back. You can find that notice of intent here.

Please consider sacrificing a Saturday to honor the sacrifice of a soldier and his family who made that Saturday possible. This is not about the war, theology or even about America. And yet, it is about everything those three things stand for. It is about a family grieving in peace without hateful men with a godless agenda mocking everything our God and Country stand for. The Westboro Baptists conveniently ignore the verses that would warn them off their godless quest. Too bad they will not heed the truth that, “… in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” I don’t envy them their time of explaining to God why they behaved so badly in His name.

In the meantime, let’s all rally to keep these creatures away from one of our fallen heroes and his family. It’s the least we can do to say thanks …

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

As are many of you, I’m following the discussion on extending the Bush Tax Cuts, especially for the wealthy. One of the primary arguments to justify more taxation in the name of the needy is that letting wealthy people keep what is theirs will not result in the creation of new jobs. The reasoning is since the wealthy will save, invest or spend the money as they see fit, those dollars will not work to create jobs.

However, no one making that argument has shown, even marginally, let alone conclusively, that wealthy people keeping their money doesn’t create jobs. I thought to ask the question in reverse. Is there evidence wealthy people do use their money to create jobs. Not surprisingly, there is.

Easy enough to demonstrate from basic finance is that savings and investments create jobs. Monies saved or invested carry with them the expectation of a financial gain. Those receiving the funds must generate enough profit to cover their expenses and profits and also provide the saver/investor with a profit.

This is often accomplished by loaning money to businesses to expand operations via new or upgraded technology, machinery, locations and the like. With additional capacity to provide their good or service, businesses then hire additional people to generate more profit since they, too, must pay back the loan, with interest.

Less obvious is how successful businesses associated with very wealthy people are doing in this regard. But the evidence is there if you dig.

The US Department of Labor provides statistics on employment in the major Market segments of the US Economy. These are not all US jobs, but close. I found these from 1999. To illustrate the impact the most wealthy Americans have on jobs, I chose 4 men with established wealth and clear and distinct connections with market segments: Henry Ford – Auto Industry; Andrew Carnegie – Steel; John Rockefeller – Oil, and; Bill Gates – Computers.

Together, these 4 men created almost 21 MILLION American jobs in 1999. All of them have been creating American jobs for decades, most for over 100 years! The total number of jobs listed for 1999 is 127,274,000. The employment legacy left by just 4 men is 16.5% of the jobs in the major market segments of our economy.

If we add to these the impact of men like William Randolph Hearst on media and Conrad Hilton on hospitality and any number of others one might mention, it becomes clear that the wealthy in this country have a deep, abiding and profound positive impact on job creation. Given that government employment at all levels only totaled 9.6 million jobs for 1999, it would seem clear where the goose laying golden employment eggs is to be found.

Just to be clear and to drive home the point even further, these are only US employment figures. Please make your own estimates as to how these 4 men have impacted global economics. While you’re at it, please add in the value they brought to all market segments via innovation. How does one quantify the impact of Henry Ford’s assembly line and John Rockefeller’s creation of corporate research? How do you measure the impact of Bill Gates’ computers on productivity and the resultant freeing up of capital for other use.

Even if we increase their numbers to account for all the big names in Steel, Oil, Auto and Computer, each is still responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs annually. Why oppose these people? If the goal is to create jobs, we should find or create more of them, not demonize them and try to drive them out of the country and out of business.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Bill Gates: 2,227,250 jobs

SIC 357 – Computer and Office Equipment – 331,250;
SIC 737 – Computer Programming, Data Processing, and Other Computer Related Services – 1,896,000;

Andrew Carnegie: 9,845,250 jobs

SIC 10 – Metal Mining – 39,250;
SIC 171 – Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning – 906,500;
SIC 254 – Partitions, Shelving, Lockers, and Office And – 89,250;
SIC 33 – Primary Metal Industries – 699,750;
SIC 34 – Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment – 1,539,250;
SIC 35 – Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment – 1,783,500 (minus Comp Equip);
SIC 37 – Transportation Equipment – 829,000 (minus Motor Vehicles);
SIC 371 – Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment – 528,500 (1);
SIC 40 – Railroad Transportation – 200,000;
SIC 41 – Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation – 241,375 (1);
SIC 42 – Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing – 824,950(1) (minus Warehousing);
SIC 44 – Water Transportation – 93,750 (1);
SIC 45 – Transportation By Air – 651,375 (1);
SIC 46 – Pipelines, Except Natural Gas – 6,500 (3);
SIC 501 – Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Parts and Supplies – 261,500 (1);
SIC 507 – Hardware, and Plumbing and Heating Equipment – 317,750;
SIC 508 – Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies – 833,000;

Henry Ford: 5,990,500 jobs

SIC 371 – Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment – 528,500 (2);
SIC 41 – Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation – 241,375 (2);
SIC 42 – Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing – 824,950 (2);
SIC 44 – Water Transportation – 93,750 (2);
SIC 45 – Transportation By Air – 651,375 (2);
SIC 47 – Transportation Services – 463,250;
SIC 501 – Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Parts and Supplies – 261,500 (2);
SIC 55 – Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations – 1,727,500 (minus Gas Stations);
SIC 75 – Automotive Repair, Services, and Parking – 1,198,250;

John Rockefeller: 2,834,250 jobs

SIC 13 – Oil and Gas Extraction – 296,750;
SIC 29 – Petroleum Refining and Related Industries – 127,500;
SIC 30 – Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products – 1,023,750;
SIC 46 – Pipelines, Except Natural Gas – 6,500 (2);
SIC 492 – Gas Production and Distribution – 463,250;
SIC 517 – Petroleum and Petroleum Products – 154,250;
SIC 554 – Gasoline Service Stations – 666,500;
SIC 598 – Fuel Dealers – 95,750;

All job totals rounded to the nearest “250″.
(1) = Total for SIC category shared equally with Henry Ford
(2) = Total for SIC category shared equally with Andrew Carnegie
(3) = Total for SIC category shared equally with John Rockefeller

Funny how art imitates life. isn’t it? Being a Trekkie of at least the second order, I remember a quote from an episode of “Star Trek: TNG” from 1990 where the Enterprise evaluates a planet seeking admission to the Federation. Superficially they appear to be evolved, enlightented folk; perfect candidates. But they have a dark side. A cadre of former soldiers, lauded for their ability during wartime, is brutally oppressed now that peace has been achieved. Very Blade Runner made for TV. When pushed by Captain Picard about the matter, the planet’s Prime Minister defends their actions as necessary and responds he will not discuss the matter further as it is “a matter of internal security”. Picard observes quietly to himself the words I remember, “Matter of internal security – the age-old cry of the oppressor.”

Governments sure do love them some “necessary measures for the sake of security”, don’t they? Kinda reminds you of our current, non-Hollywood TSA situation, no?

20 years ago I recall being uneasy over Picard’s comment. Surely there was room for a government to speak of “security” and “necessity” in the same sentence without raising red flags. I lived in the US of A after all. Our government would never persecute its citizens in the name of security. Well, the times they are a changin’ …

When it comes to air travel in the US today, the ONLY argument for the abuse of citizens that is TSA being made is that the measures are necessary for security. If you ask the TSA agents themselves, they admit their own distaste with what they are asked to do. If you ask the Secretary of State to submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s plans, she would opt out. Even necessary security is an insufficient reason for Secretary Clinton to endure savaging at the hands of TSA (pun intended). If you ask a former TSA Security Director, he won’t even bother to hide the unconstitutionality of TSA procedures, he just lets fly with the “necessary security” argument. Clearly, government cannot be trusted when using the words “necessary” and “security” in the same sentence!

Or can it?

Because there is one sentence I also remember wherein those two words were used by government and which does not produce fear of government in me. They are from a lot longer ago than 1990. Oddly, given the need for real security and real adherence to American ideals and principles, I am convinced this sentence is the absolute last one any current governmental bureaucrat would recommend to deal with threats to America. But I’ll just toss it out there anyway … purely for discussion purposes, you understand. The one use of “necessary” and “security” in the same sentence by government that I am not afraid of is this one:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

Let the flaming begin …

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

Discussion of TSA’s recent actions has focused on procedures. But procedures do not implement themselves. Someone has to be comfortable with looking at naked pictures of strangers. Someone has to be comfortable searching breasts and testicles for likely nonexistent explosives. For every woman savaged and every child fondled, there was a person in a blue shirt willing to participate in the process. That is disturbing at best.

Front line TSA staff is caught between a rock and a hard place; between their public bosses and their bureaucratic overlords. They seem unaware of response options they have other than to develop a siege mentality. I remember a sign I saw in a DMV office complaining about the public’s bad attitude. The DMV concluded the public’s attitude in their office was unrelated to their DMV experience. The public was wrong to be offended and the DMV was free to behave as it pleased.

But being unaware of options doesn’t mean there aren’t any. They could quit. They could say, “I will not sexually assault and humiliate another human being in the name of security merely because I am told the measures are necessary.” Yet I know of no TSA employee, not one, who has opted to quit rather than obey orders.

TSA knows the pain, humiliation, frustration and anger they produce. They ignore it. Management says it’s “necessary” and staff implements with gusto. Nobody quits. Nobody objects. They all just hunker down. Any outrage they feel is over how they are treated and perceived.

It reminds me of The Milgram Experiment at Yale in the 1960s. Psychologist Stanley Milgram “… measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.” They were ordered to shock a person for giving wrong test answers. The voltage increased with each wrong answer. No actual shock was delivered. An actor in another room screamed and pounded on walls, feigning distress. Nevertheless, a huge percentage of participants delivered the maximum voltage.

Wikipedia quotes Milgram on the implications of the study,

I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. (emphasis added)

Milgram’s actual experiment, and variations on it, have been repeated since then including, it is reported, as recently as April of 2010. In every case, the results were the same.

To quote Milgram, “…the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any length on the command of authority … most urgently demand[s] explanation.” Patriots talk of Liberty. Tyrants talk of security. Until we explain why Americans, whose nation was conceived in Liberty, agree to implement tyranny because they are told to; until we understand why Americans, whose Liberty comes from almighty God, surrender that Liberty without a fight because they are told to, Rights bought with Patriot swords will be stolen by tyrant pens. Unless we again become the Americans our Declaration and Constitution were written for we are doomed.

Not that this specific issue will break us, although it might. Who knows the exact location of the point of no return? But this is movement away from Liberty and into the counterfeit embrace of currently benevolent tyrants. When we have a choice between Liberty and tyranny, and we choose tyranny, our chains become more comfortable and more easily worn. Eventually tyrants need do nothing because we will have enslaved ourselves. Somewhere the Founders are weeping.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

The justification for TSA procedures is that they are necessary “to keep Americans safe.” Unfortunately, that is an invalid premise for any governmental actions. As odd as it sounds, it is not the job of government to keep us safe.

Think how different life would be if it were. How many Americans have died in commercial airplane accidents in the last decade? How many died in auto accidents just last year? If government exists to keep us safe, why don’t they address the more serious threat of motor vehicle operation? What about threats from drowning, bicycles, falls and lightning, all of which kill more Americans, on average, than commercial plane crashes?

Some will point to the government’s mandate to “provide for the common defense”. That even sounds reasonable. Except government is wishy-washy in its threat assessments. It seems reasonable for TSA to try to protect us from Islamic terrorists. Yet TSA refuses to address the issue of Muslims or Arabs who fly domestically . The US government won’t even identify an enemy from which they are defending us. The 9/11 murderers, The Shoe Bomber and The Underwear Bomber all had ties to Islam. Not a single act of airline “terror” has been committed by someone not connected with Islam. How is TSA defending us? If you look at TSA practices, you must conclude that Islam is no danger at all. Instead we are threatened by Catholics, 3 year olds, amputees, cancer survivors and grandmothers.

The truth, largely lost on Americans who increasingly abdicate responsibility for their safety and liberty to others, is two-fold. First, government cannot “keep us safe”. At best it can identify threats and make us aware of them. Expanded intrusion into our lives does not bring safety but control. Control is a poor tool for ensuring safety. Second, even if I grant that government can keep us safe, it is not now nor has it ever been government’s job to do so.

Our government was constructed on a number of foundational premises described in the Declaration of Independence as “self evident truths”. To the Founders, these were as substantive as the sun rising in the east. Their third self evident truth is, “… to secure these rights government was instituted among men …” To the Founders, government is not to keep us safe. Rather it is to secure “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”; it is to keep us free.

When government trespasses the boundaries set for it by the Framers, it actually works against the safety of citizens. TSA, trying to create unverifiable safety, has instead created demonstrable dangers. We know driving is far more dangerous than flying. Thanks to TSA’s excess tens of thousands of people will drive rather than suffer TSA’s assault on their liberty. This puts Americans at greater risk, not less. We know terrorists choose targets of easy opportunity; wedding receptions, pizza parlors, kids getting candy from soldiers and Iraqis waiting to be paid. TSA is creating delays at airports; stacking up people on the unsecure side of security. Terrorists could waltz into any airport, walk right up to TSA’s checkpoints, blow themselves up and there is absolutely no plan in place for TSA to prevent that from happening. You can, no doubt, add other scenarios. This is safety? It is madness. It is wrong. It must cease.

In light of threats to air travel, TSA ineffectively meddles in the arena of safety for which they have no authority. Yet they ignore their clear responsibility to preserve and secure the liberties and rights of Americans. Bluntly, they cannot keep us safe and they will not keep us free. For the sake of both safety and liberty, this farce needs to stop.

Count me in the “I’m not flying if it involves naked scanners and genital groping by the TSA” crowd. I answered that way, along with 96% of almost 50,000 (as of this writing) other respondents to a poll on the subject up at Reuters.

This morning’s USA Today features a column by Janet Napolitano calling for restraint and lauding both the new procedures in place and the people in charge of implementing them. It does not inspire confidence.

There seems to be at least one outright untruth in the article. Napolitano says, “The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.” Yet the machines used in a federal courthouse in Florida have stored over 35,000 such images. Further, while the account is vehemently denied by British authorities, a Bollywood star claims to have autographed printed copies of his scan for airport employees.

But the real outrage comes later. Napolitano asks for the help of Americans in thwarting those who would do us harm. She says,

As always, we also ask the traveling public to be on the lookout for unattended bags or suspicious activity. Alert travelers have helped thwart plots and crimes in the past, and we encourage everyone to remain vigilant during a time when we know our enemies would like to strike. If you see something suspicious, report it to an airport security official or law enforcement.

But Secretary Napolitano is being extremely selective about the reports she wants to get from Americans. She’s down with hearing about threats to Lives if they involve unattended bags. But if those same Americans report threats to their Liberty from the tyranny of the government in the guise of out of control and drunk on power TSA employees or if we object to naked scans of our selves or our loved ones in violation of the 4th Amendment Right to be secure in our person and papers from unreasonable searches – well, then we should just shut up.

Leave your shoulder bag on the ground while you visit the bathroom and you might get gang tackled by TSA. Refuse to raise your hands above your shoulders in the scanner or object to a complete stranger groping your genitals or those of your wife or children and you might get the same treatment.

It’s a “Who guards the guardians?” scenario. The TSA investigates others deemed by themselves to be threats but no one investigates at all when the threat comes from the TSA itself. And we wonder why there is so little trust in government. Instead of “securing our rights” which is the self-evident truth of the role of government as recorded in the Declaration of Independence, government has, once again, become the greatest threat to those rights. If you happen to be flying and disagree, the TSA will subject you to a most unpleasant experience, the least problematic aspect of which might be that you’ll miss your flight.

Look for more encounters with TSA like this one from a man who told the screener, “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested” (video after the jump). I have to say, though, given the circumstances, he seems a poster child for restraint and moderation. I haven’t yet had the “privilege” of this extensive a violation of my rights by the TSA. However, were I in line and the TSA were suggesting grabbing my testicles or the groin area of my wife or my children, arrest would be the last thing I would threaten the screener with. Assault, and repeated assault at that, would be more likely …

Cross posted at Blue Collar Muse …

The old saying is that you eat an elephant one bite at a time. The concept is timeless and has application across broad swaths of society, including politics. Incrementalism is a well established tactic, particularly by the political Left and judicial activists. The idea is that you need not reach your goal in one fell swoop. It might take longer, but goals can be just as surely, and often more permanently, accomplished in several steps.

The tactic is being effectively applied to basic tenets of American culture. We see it when Supreme Court justices put international precedents on a par with the Constitution when deciding cases. We see it when US troops, who swear allegiance to the Constitution, military officers and military legal code of the United States , are put under the military command authority of foreign armies. We see it when easily understood and universally accepted concepts are perverted. It is hard not to see, particularly this last tactic, as both intentional and designed to undermine US sovereignty.

Consider Tim Graham’s NewsBusters expose of its most recent application by Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and the focus of Time Magazine’s, “10 Questions for Jorge Ramos”. His first question is “As a Mexican-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, what is your take on the immigration debate?” His outrageous answer is, “The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, but right now millions of men and women in Arizona and in other parts of the U.S. are not being treated as equals, and I can’t believe that. Countries are judged by the way they treat the most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable population in the U.S. right now is undocumented immigrants.”

The Declaration, indeed, recognizes all men are created equal. This is a foundational principle of the country to which Ramos himself swore allegiance when he became a citizen. Yet nothing in the Declaration lets Ramos ignore US law or advocate for others to do so under the guise of equality. The equality the Declaration recognizes is that there are basic rights belonging to all men which must be equally recognized by all men. Further, no man or government is permitted to violate those rights. Ramos’ notion of equality seems to be that all men must be considered American citizens in order to be equal.

Ramos gratuitously alleges millions in the US are treated less than equally. Such a notion is indefensible. Everyone in the US must obey its laws and the laws of the states in which they are present. Insisting they do so is not unequal treatment. It is the essence of equality. All who break the law must answer to the law.

Equality requires the law to be applied the same to all men, even illegal aliens. Ramos wants illegal aliens to be exempt from some laws. That’s hardly equal. Ramos refuses to have illegal aliens abide by the same 4th Amendment Due Process protections the rest of us must rely on. That’s hardly equal. Illegal aliens and citizens alike are protected from running afoul of law enforcement because they have dark skin and a Hispanic surname. They must first be found or suspected of violating another law before their immigration status is relevant.

Of course, law enforcement might abuse its authority. It has happened before and there are precedents to deal with that. That, too, is part of equality under the law. But one cannot assume because the possibility exists in any given situation, the reality exists in all situations. Ramos’ argument depends on that assumption. It’s not that law enforcement might violate the rights of Hispanics on occasion. He must argue for a routine, near universal, violation of the rights of Hispanics. There is no evidence supporting this conclusion.

Finally, such reasoning requires Ramos to apply as valid a concept he must also condemn as wrong. Law enforcement cannot draw negative conclusions about Hispanics based on heritage but Ramos can draw negative conclusions about law enforcement based on occupation. Once again, that’s hardly equal.

It is precisely such small and incremental devaluations of language and concepts that must be exposed, condemned and corrected if our country’s heritage and strength are to endure. Ramos, and those like him, are ignorant of the most basic concept upon which this country was founded; that all men, even the King, are subject to the law. It is “Lex Rex” (The Law is King) and not “Rex Lex” (The King is Law). Rather than call Ramos on his ignorance, Time celebrates it. Such a disregard for truth by Ramos and Time serves no one, least of all the illegal aliens in our midst.

Allowing such specious reasoning to muddy the waters only means the needed solutions to such a vexing question are put off even longer while small minds rail against the very concepts established for their protection. It also weakens the strength of our nation, the same strength so many come here to be protected by, one ignorant argument at a time …

Crossposted from the Blue Collar Muse blog.

Middle Tennessee has a forum scheduled this evening for candidates for Tennessee’s Senate District 17. It is sponsored by the Wilson County Tea Party (WCTP), moderated by WLAC’s Steve Gill and will feature GOP candidates Mae Beavers and Gordon Borck. It will not feature GOP candidate Susan Lynn. WCTP is reporting this. Their emails and their website say “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate.” Reading those words, one would be justified in concluding Rep. Lynn was extended a good faith invitation and refused it. One would also be justified in drawing the negative conclusions about Rep. Lynn such refusals usually generate.

However, it seems WCTP’s sparse explanation, while accurate, is incomplete. When Rep. Lynn was invited to the debate, she immediately agreed to participate. It was only after WCTP refused to seat a forum moderator other than Steve Gill that Susan withdrew from the event.

Steve has been critical of Rep. Lynn on his show. He has taken many GOP candidates to task, including Mae Beavers, if he is to be believed. Gill thinks he’d make a great moderator. Listening to this clip from his show, while some say his words argue for his impartiality, other words and a manner seen by many as demeaning and insulting are said to argue otherwise. Does this prove he cannot be impartial? No. Might reasonable people wonder if he could be? Yes. In cases like these, requests to seat a new moderator are routine. Given their history, Rep. Lynn asked for a different moderator. Not because tough questions might be asked. But because of who was asking the tough questions. WCTP refused.

Which brings us to WCTP. Why sponsor this debate in the first place? Was it to provide information to voters about candidates? Then all they have to do is find a date, a place and a moderator acceptable to everyone. Lynn’s request for a different moderator is not unusual or difficult to fulfill. But the WCTP declined to participate. Why did they decide having Steve Gill moderate was more valuable to voters than having Susan Lynn answer questions?

The decision is disappointing and, frankly, goes against all the Tea Parties stand for. It’s more the sort of thing we expect from special interest groups. Why refuse to act in the interest of the People? Why insist on a scenario so easily perceived as restricting access to good information?

WCTP’s refusal to accommodate Lynn’s reasonable request set up a Catch-22. If Rep. Lynn accepts the invitation as is, she puts herself in the hands of one who might treat her badly. If she refuses the invitation, it might be used against her politically. There’s no upside, yet she has to choose. She chose to refuse the invitation.

WCTP’s explanation of Lynn’s decision is terrible. Instead of full disclosure, they offer incomplete truth. They say, “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate,” when it was just as easy to say, “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate due to concerns over the impartiality of our moderator.” That would have been a complete and truthful answer. It would also mean having to explain why they chose not provide a moderator acceptable to all invited guests.

This is precisely the inside-the-beltway, smoke-filled-back-room, good-ol’-boy, politics as usual the Tea Parties formed to oppose. That we have a Tea Party using such tactics is disturbing. But the worst conclusion is, given the ease with which the problem could have been solved, how does an objective observer label this as anything but intentional.

In the end, this is not about Susan Lynn, Mae Beavers, Gordon Borck or even Steve Gill. It’s about the integrity of the Tea Party Movement. The entire country is talking about its future. Some say it’s bright. Others say it will all be over shortly. The answer will be found in the actions of the Tea Parties themselves. If they will not ensure they cannot hear the various siren songs sung across political seas, if they become the very thing they say they despise, then one of our best hopes to deliver our country from the evils it currently faces is lost.

Since the election of our current President I have consistently stated that he may be the President but he will never be my President. The current crisis in the Gulf is a perfect example of why. Despite his stated desire to be the President of all Americans, Barack Obama has demonstrated such words are meaningless rhetoric for political consumption. The Obama voice that we should be listening to is the one that speaks louder than words.

Since the beginning of the BP Gulf oil spill, we have had domestic resources available which the President has not utilized and offers of expert foreign help, some of it superior to our own capabilities, which the President has refused to accept. It’s the refusal of these foreign offers that is particularly revealing of Obama’s mindset.

BP CEO Tony Hayward has been the brunt of massive, international criticism for his behavior. Barack Obama has also personally been critical of Hayward and BP. Hayward’s comment that he’d like his life back and his decision to attend a yacht race while the Gulf crisis remains unresolved have been seen as evidence of his lack of concern and engagement regardless of what official statements BP might release. BP is seen as fiddling while Rome burns. Response to him and his actions is understandable.

Inexplicably, President Obama has avoided similar charges being laid at his doorstep. Searching for “whose a** to kick” and shaking down BP for $20 billion between shots on the front nine gives the impression of effective engagement and serves to divert attention from his own equally irresponsible and callous disregard for those impacted by the spill.

At issue are resources for cleaning up oil spills known as skimmers. They have a variety of designs, applications and capacities. But skimmer technology is proven and in daily use around the world. Recognizing large spills need large capacity skimmers, the Market has developed just such products.

These products are being offered to the US from all over the world. But the Obama administration refuses to accept them. There are are two basic reasons why, one environmental and one rooted in protectionist labor policy. President Obama cares more about the interests of Labor Unions and Environmentalists than he does everyday Americans being devastated by the oil spill.

The environmental argument is irresponsibility in the extreme. The Taiwanese have a ship in US waters, waiting for permission to be deployed to the Gulf, that can remove 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the waters. Current estimates of what is flowing into the gulf range from 5,000 to 25,000 barrels per day (Note:figures are determined assuming litres=quarts and 42 gallons per barrel. It’s understood this is not an exact conversion). Every day, the Taiwanese ship could remove 20 days worth of oil being spilled in the Gulf.

The Taiwanese Super Skimmer sucks up water and oil and separates the two. The oil is stored aboard the ship and the water is pumped back into the ocean. Since the the oil/water separation is not 100% effective, some water returned to the Gulf has oil in it. How much? An AP writer says, “traces of oil.” But even those traces require EPA permission for the technology to be deployed. 500,000 barrels out – traces back in. The irony and surreal nature of the situation is obvious. The President could sign an order to deploy the technology. He refuses …

In addition, the President hides behind protectionist labor policies not meant to be applied to situations such as this. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as The Jones Act,

… deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents …

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.

In the event of emergency, Presidents can suspend the Jones Act. President Bush did so after Katrina. President Obama decimated the livelihoods of thousands by enacting a moratorium on drilling. He permits the livelihood of thousands more to be decimated as oil washes ashore. Yet he has the gall to claim he is doing all he can. Other countries have ships and crews, waiting to help, sitting idle in American waters, including the Taiwanese ship, flagged out of Liberia and carrying a crew of 32. How long must we wait for Barack Obama to decide the devastation of America’s economy outweighs the temporary suspension of 32 union jobs.

Worse, some of the most effective technology doesn’t even need such attention. According to Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organization for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland, Dutch technology is available which can be deployed “… very quickly, because only the oil skimmers need to be flown across the Atlantic and placed on local tankers …” While this still violates the Jones Act provision that such material be constructed in the United States and owned by U.S. citizens it gets around the shipping issue. It’s not like the US has companies capable of producing such equipment in a reasonable time frame, if at all. Why is this not the easiest decision of Obama’s presidency?

The conclusion is inescapable. We elected an inexperienced, empty suit with ties to people, places and policy detrimental to America’s best interests. He is incapable of action supportive of the Free Market, the notion of Americans protecting America or his constitutional obligation to secure the liberties of the people. He cannot distinguish between the anonymity of the Illinois Senate and the focus on his solo performance on the Presidential stage. Having flubbed easily memorized lines and eschewing the cue cards, the President resorts to blaming his supporting cast, stage hands and the orchestra while boasting of his award winning performance. The quintessential diva.

But beyond the staging, smoke and mirrors, Americans are being savaged. This is no play. It’s a battle. And it must be asked, who is more despicable? The man who shoots another man, even innocently or accidentally, or the man who watches the victim bleed out, having the power to help yet without lifting a finger, all while claiming he’s an integral part of the life-saving? If you can find the President somewhere on the back nine, ask him that for me …

From Blue Collar Muse

In order to give viewers a taste of the sort of programming and capability TeaPartyHD is bringing to market, TeaPartyHD will be live streaming “An Evening With Ann Coulter” from Nashville this evening. To watch, simply go to TeaPartyHD.com and follow the instructions. While there, please also sign up for email updates and information in the days ahead by clicking on the “Free Membership” button.

The evening’s programming begins at 5:30 Central time with interviews with politicians, candidates and news-makers from around the state of Tennessee. This is followed by a program for the evening honoring our country and its heroes; our men and women in uniform, past and present. The evening will conclude with Ann’s remarks.

TeaPartyHD is an ambitious project with the goal of establishing an online news network that is crowd sourced and crowd powered. This goal is reflected in the two slogans it has adopted: “Real News. Real Raw. Real Time” and “Your Voice. Your Values. Your Vote”. TeaPartyHD is looking for video contributors and content producers around the country who are looking for an opportunity to both showcase their work and help report the news in their area that the media can’t or won’t report. If you are interested in being an anchor for TPHD or if you or your organization is interested in having a channel of your own on the network, be sure to sign up for an email subscription as we will be moving quickly to establish our reporting network.

The evening’s event is brought to you by the National Fiscal Conservative PAC. In addition to the launch of TeaPartyHD there will be roll-out information on other new projects as well that will launch in the near future including The Greatest Debate, a tool empowering you to host your own debates, forums and townhall meetings; Votility, a tool to get and stay informed on the progress of all Federal legislation; and, Raising It Right, a tool for candidates, organizations and merchants to raise money online. All in all, this will be a full and exciting evening.

Thank you in advance for your support an interest in TeaPartyHD. Don’t forget to tune in tonight at 5:30 Central for “An Evening with Ann”. We’d appreciate it if you’d pass this on to your family and friends and those on any email lists you have, as well. See you tonight online!!

I’ve held the political views I’ve had for years. While they’ve changed and matured during that time, the underlying philosophy behind them has not. My point is that as an American and an activist, whatever success I have had in challenging and changing the political system has not been grounded in what I believe. Rather my success was built on a foundation of technological innovations which gave me, as an individual, the same voice in the political arena as that enjoyed only by politicians and media moguls until quite recently. Technological innovation remains the driving force behind the growth and success of Conservative thought and influence. Specifically, online and internet innovation.

The latest offering in that innovation process is a product I’m both excited about as an activist and proud to be associated with as part of the team responsible for developing it and bringing it to market. It’s called TeaPartyHD and it has the ambitious goal of providing a professional and complete news network to the online community dedicated to covering and reporting the news in a crowd sourced, community powered format. In addition, there are several related products in the pipeline that will complement and enhance TeaPartyHD which will be announced and released in the near future.

For activists and organizations looking for the next generation tools to make your voice heard and to fight for the principles that will rescue our Republic, TeaPartyHD is designed to be a significant weapon in your arsenal. The official launch of the network is taking place in Nashville, TN this Saturday night May 29th at a fund raising event for the National Fiscal Conservative PAC. You can find more details in the TeaPartyHD press release included at the end of this post.

What I’m asking you to do is visit TeaPartyHD right now. The site is not quite spit polished but our plans and vision will be clear. Visit the site, look around, kick the tires and give us your feedback. What do you like? How can you see TeaPartyHD fitting in to your plans or those of your organization? Most importantly, while you’re there, please sign up for email updates by clicking on the “Free Membership” button. There is a lot of information coming about the products and services offered at TeaPartyHD, ways you can be personally involved and how you can use TeaPartyHD to make a difference right in your community. Let us keep in touch with you and you won’t miss any of it.

Finally, if you like what you see, please tell a friend about TeaPartyHD. The real success of the network will be when your stories, opinions, solutions and ideas are being talked about around America’s workplace water coolers, over lunch after Sunday services and between family and friends as they look to the future and prepare their individual responses to the tyranny their Government is forcing on them. There’s no way to predict how many people will be, as I was, energized by this new tool. The only sure thing is that they are out there, silent now – but looking for the right tool to help them speak out. In the end, that’s what it’s all about, after all. As the TeaPartyHD slogan says – it’s “Your Vote. Your Values. Your Voice”!

Welcome to the news important to you. Welcome to the news reported by you. Welcome to TeaPartyHD!

ALSO AT: Blue Collar Muse

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Christy Loiacono
Heads and Tails, Inc.
760.724.3200
Christy@headsandtails.tv
TeaParty.tv
TeapartyHD.com

Tea Party HD TV Launches At Ann Coulter Event Sponsored By The NFC-PAC On May 29th

Nashville, TN- May 27, 2010 (Market Wire) – TeaPartyHD is a TV news network devoted to covering the unreported news, a network delivering live HD quality television, time-shifted programming and video to social sites and the web. TeaPartyHD is piloting beginning May 29th at the “An Evening with Ann Coulter” event sponsored by the NFC-PAC on May 29th, 2010. The focus of TeaPartyHD is finding the news that affects your liberties right where you live, work and play and reporting it in real-time.

“At TeaPartyHD, you can watch talk radio hosts live, view the hottest topics debated by your candidates, experience grass roots events, encourage Americans to stand arm-in-arm via social media tools and more”, states Tony Loiacono, Co-Founder of TeaPartyHD, adding “Our team is made up of a multi-cultural and multi-demographic group of Americans desiring to share our voices.”

TeaPartyHD delivers original interviews, commentary and current event programming to their audience, and then makes it available in HD quality just like the Associated Press (AP) to traditional radio, broadcast, satellite and cable TV networks like MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CNN and more. TeaPartyHD shares programming devoted to current events, often using interviews and commentary about the issues that impact every American. Now, through political calendars, blogs, message boards, on-demand software research solutions and boots on the streets, TeaPartyHD connects Americans sharing a commitment to, among other things, Constitutional governance.

TeaPartyHD is currently interviewing journalists, producers, shooters and editors to seek out and produce segments covering the unreported news the mainstream media can’t tell; stories that affect us all. We desire to bring the gift of these eyes, ears and minds straight to you whether on the computer, mobile device or television. For more information go to: http://www.teapartyhd.com

About TeaPartyHD

TeaPartyHD is principally engaged in the development, production and worldwide distribution of news programs, television programs, television broadcasting, cable network programming, IPTV programs, Internet TV and Mobile TV. The unit’s studios, production facilities and film and television library provide high-quality creative content while its broadcasting and cable networks provide extensive distribution platforms for the Company’s programs. In 2010, TeaPartyHD bought TeaParty.TV, a company that began in 2007. TeaPartyHD has incorporated Tea Party TV assets and products into a robust offering for all tea lovers.

Conventional wisdom dictates the campaign with the most money and the most experienced staff outperforms the underfunded and inexperienced campaign. But anything can happen in a campaign and often does. A couple of days, let alone weeks or months can be a political eternity when it comes to having to live with the consequences of choices made by campaigns. Which is why campaigns like money and experience. It helps cut down the number of opportunities to gaffe your way into a concession speech instead of a victory speech.

But it doesn’t always work out like that. Consider these two campaigns. One is in California, one in Pennsylvania. One is a US Senate race, one a US House race. One candidate has lots of money and political experience and the other is running her first race on a shoestring budget. Both of them put out web videos. One of them is excellent and the other … well, not so much …

On September 12th, 2009 a crowd estimated at 500,000 to 2,000,000 gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their wishes known to Congress. They wanted irresponsible spending stopped. They wanted an end to unconstitutional legislation. They were ignored. Everyone I spoke to who took part in that rally labeled it one of the most personally inspiring events of their lifetime. Unfortunately, they hadn’t gone to Washington for a “mountain top” experience. They went to effect political change. At the time, it was all people could talk about. Today, just a few months later, I hear next to nothing about it.

By contrast, in the middle part of the last decade, a small number of wealthy men quietly flipped the state and federal delegations of one state from Republican to Democrat and did it without leaving home. Tim Gill and a few others dropped $10 million dollars into a couple of consecutive election cycles in Colorado.  They, too, wanted to effect political change. No doubt many questioned their sanity and tactics. Those who ignored them did so to their detriment. Today, years later, I still hear about what is known as “the Colorado model”. Not because it moves men’s hearts; but because it changed a state.

The bottom line is “giving” is more effective than “going” – at least in politics.

These two stories from the past, one success – one failure, illuminate what’s at stake in the present.  Let’s assume 1,000,000 people marched on Washington, DC last September spending 48-72 hours and $500 each to do so. Simple math reveals a pool of 48,000,000 to 72,000,000 man hours and a whopping $500,000,000 in cash. That’s enough to put 1 to 1.5 million man hours into phone banking, envelope stuffing, and door knocking to go along with $10,000,000.00 in giving to candidates in each state in the Union! In a single election cycle, in all 50 states, we can duplicate activity proven in one state to produce the  political change we want.

I’m not saying marching on DC is a bad thing. In fact, I believe the 9-12 March helped solidify the national legitimacy of our political opposition to the agenda of those who would steal away our Liberty. It brought us together in a needed way. But it failed to put Government in its place.

There are already calls to return to DC in 2010 in even bigger numbers and to gather for a variety of causes.  In this election year, I think that’s a mistake. Take the $500 you would spend and the hours you would invest and spend and invest them at home.  Find and support – with your time, talent and treasure – candidates and organizations that represent you. Not only will that produce the political success we went to Washington to accomplish, it will produce the “band of brothers” relationships we’ll treasure for years as well.

Cross posted from Raising It Right.

When discussing scientific things with a friend of mine, a scientist himself, the notion of Science as the dispassionate, neutral observer willing to fearlessly proceed wherever the evidence leads – even if it leads in a personally distasteful direction – colors his conversation. In truth, that’s probably how we all view Science.  More to the point, it’s how we should view Science because it’s how Science should be. We should be able to trust its conclusions.

But what happens if the scientific community, for whatever reason, abandons its neutrality concerning the conclusion the evidence is pointing to and decides to actively promote a conclusion unsupported by the facts? It takes no great leap to imagine that, in such a scenario, some evidence would be suppressed and other evidence would be gussied up.  Not with a view to finding the Truth.  With a view to manipulating the conclusion.

For years, common citizens and scientists alike have wondered: from whence comes all this support for Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW)? Not only did the same scientific community predict just a few years before all the AGW hysteria that we were headed for a new Ice Age, but research often points away from AGW as a scientific conclusion.

If Science is, indeed, the dispassionate neutral observer, the best conclusion would seem to be to keep on studying and make no definitive statements.  A scientific version of “We can neither confirm or deny the existence of either AGW or an imminent Ice Age.” New evidence has emerged, however, which seems to show the scientific community did just the opposite.

The Telegraph’s James Delingpole writes:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

The trap my scientist friend falls into with his belief in Science as an arbiter of knowledge and Truth is not that Science sometimes comes to conclusions that are later shown to be wrong. The very quest that Science embarks on recognizes there are things we now believe that are wrong. That’s why Science exists, to ferret out the Truth.

My friend errs in trusting scientists. Human nature, as it exists in scientific leaders, political leaders, religious leaders and others engaged in the quest to improve the life and condition of their followers, is not exempt from the call and response of greed, deception, hypocrisy and hubris because their cause is noble.

As with Politics and politicians; as with Theology and theologians; so with Science and scientists. When looking for Truth, our greatest concern should not be the analysis of the conclusions being reported. It should be an analysis of the character of those doing the reporting.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

This would be hilarious if what she was bloviating about wasn’t so serious.

The Speaker of the House actually says it is UNFAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of POSSIBLE illnesses to the rest of us and then opines it is FAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of PURPOSEFUL provision of health insurance to the rest of us. This level of ignorance is intentional.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse

New Orleans media is reporting that in the wake of his vote with the Democrats to pass House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Health Care Bill, Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (pronouced “Gow”) is experiencing some backlash back home.

WGNO, ABC 26 News is reporting there have been two fundraisers canceled in the week since Cao became the lone Republican to support what many believe to be an irresponsible and reckless increase in federal spending. They are also reporting some previous donors, unable to cancel their fundraisers or choose not to attend one are asking for their money back.

Cao’s actions have obviously angered supporters in his district. He is a freshman Congressman who barely edged out his incumbent opponent, Democrat William Jefferson, best known for being caught with almost $100,000 in bribe money in his freezer. Around the country, Republicans and Conservatives are also angry with Cao as his single GOP vote has enabled Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic caucus to claim their victory was bi-partisan in nature based on the votes of 219 Democrats and Congressman Cao.

ABC 26 News notes that GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, while disappointed, has no plans for “political retaliation” against Cao. Given the vital importance money plays in political campaigns and given the mood with donors back home, it appears Cantor won’t need to worry about that at all. Cao’s supporters will take care of that for him with their own vote on reforming his campaign finances.